The Supreme Court has made many decisions about police conduct but very few have had the impact on all of law enforcement as that of Tennessee vs. Garner. This landmark case has set very clear lines as when an officer of the law may use deadly force on a fleeing suspect.

At about 10:45 p. m. on October 3, 1974, Officers of the Memphis Police Department, Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright responded to a "prowler inside call" (FindLaw.com). After arriving at the scene, they saw a woman standing on her porch and motioning toward the house next door. She said that she had heard the sound of glass being shattered and that "they" or "someone" was breaking in the house next door. While Wright radioed the dispatcher saying they were at the scene, Hymon went behind the house. He heard a slamming door and saw someone running across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence ( Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow ). Being able to see Garner's face and hands, He saw no sign of a weapon and though not certain, was "reasonably sure" and "figured" that Garner was unarmed. Hymon thought Garner was near the age 17 or 18 and around 5'5" to 5'7" tall. While Garner crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon identified himself and issued a command to halt taking a few steps toward the suspect. Garner then attempted to climb the fence. Believing that if Garner made it over the fence he would escape capture, Hymon shot him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body (Biers).

By using lethal force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Jessica McElhone
Intro to Criminal Justice
2/27/13
TennesseevGarner was basically a case involving the use of deadly physical force to defend property. On October 3, 1974, officer Hymon of the Memphis Police department was responding to a burglary. As Hymon made his way to the back of the house he was startled by Garner, thought to be 17 or 18 years old. Garner ran out of the back door of the house and across the dark yard to a six foot chain-link fence. As garner approached the fence, officer Hymon ordered the suspect to stop. Hymon then used his flash light to observe the suspects face and hands and came to the reasonable conclusion that Garner was unarmed and did not pose a threat to his safety. Ignoring the officer Garner began to climb the fence. Hymon believing that if Garner made it over the fence he would flee and shot at him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head killing him. Garner who was in fact 15 years old, was later found to be in possession of a purse and ten dollars from the house, but no weapon. Officer Hymon was following both the law of Tennessee and the procedure of the Memphis Police Department. A Memphis police officer is allowed, and taught, to use deadly force to catch a fleeing felon after other reasonable means to catch that person have been attempted. Police are...

...Landmark Case
“Use of Deadly Force”
Tennesseev. Garner, et al
In October of 1974, a Memphis Police officer made a split decision to fire a shot that ultimately ended the life of 15 year old Edward Garner. This choice was made in an attempt to prevent the deceased from evading an arrest based on an eye witness account of a suspected burglary. This action was disputed by the State of Tennessee and the deceased members father, each was basing the argument of very opposite ends of the spectrum.
The Tennessee statute at the time stated that the use of deadly force was acceptable, which was backed up by the department policy, in the event of successfully preventing the escape a suspect. The statute warranted the use of deadly force was acceptable if the defendant attempted to flee or forcibly resist an imminent arrest. The department policy was even more restrictive, however still allowed the use of deadly force was warranted in the event of a burglary. .
In this case is a landmark case, because it brought the fleeing felon rule to the forefront, where it can be discussed, and is more adequately detailed. It was originally thought. The statute provided that if there was an intent to arrest and the defendant decided to either flee or forcibly resist that the officer may use all necessary means, including deadly force to enforce the arrest. This case, enabled the Supreme...

...﻿Tennesseev. Garner was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Before Tennesseev.Garner some states had it written in law that they could use any means in order to apprehend a fleeing felon, including deadly force. Unfortunately a 15 year old kid had to be killed before someone challenged that law and say it violates their constitutional rights.
At about 10:45 p.m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Department Officers Leslie Wright and Elton Hymon were dispatched to answer a burglary call next door. Officer Hymon went behind the house as his partner radioed back to the station. Hymon witnessed someone running across the yard. The fleeing suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-foot-high chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands, and was reasonably sure that Garner was unarmed. Garner was fact 15 years old. After Hymon ordered Garner to halt, Garner began to climb the fence. Believing that Garner would certainly flee if he made it over the fence, Hymon...

...Name: Tennesseev. Garner
Citation: No. 83-1035, 83-1070 (1985)
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a "prowler inside call." When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out "police, halt." The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also "figured" that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department's policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner's fathers' argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing...

...﻿
Tennesseev. Garner
The landmark case of Tennesseev. Garner took place in 1985 in Memphis, Tennessee. One evening in October of 1974, an officer who had responded to a burglary in progress call, shot an unarmed 15 year old boy named Edward Garner who was running away from him. The boy had in fact stolen ten dollars “and some jewelry from an unoccupied house” (Criminal investigation, 2013, p. 246). As the officer shouted at his back for him to stop, he attempted to flee by jumping a fence. At this time, the officer whose weapon was believed to already be drawn, shot the teen, fatally wounding him. He died that night at the hospital during surgery from a gunshot wound to the back of the head.
This case called for the Supreme Court to rule that police “may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead” (Criminal investigation, 2013, p. 246). This means that although a suspect has committed a crime, if they pose no immediate threat to the officers or anyone else’s lives, they are not to be shot down solely on the basis of evading arrest. The ruling stated that “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape” (Criminal investigation, 2013, p. 246). Because of this ruling, many states including Tennessee that had previously approved of this behavior now have laws that were invalidated. To be clear, the ruling does...

...﻿
Case Citation: Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808, (1991)
Facts: After spending a morning and afternoon drinking beer and injecting cocaine, Pervis Tyrone Payne entered the apartment of 28-year-old Charisse Christopher and her two children, Lacie, age two and Nicholas, age three at approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 27th, 1987. Payne made sexual advances toward Charisse Christopher. She resisted, which lead Payne to kill both Charisse and Lacie. Nicholas was found with several severe stab wounds that completely penetrated him front to back, but he managed to survive. Payne was apprehended later that day hiding in the attic of a former girlfriend’s house. Payne was convicted by a jury of two counts of murder. At sentencing, Payne presented the testimony of his mother, father, Bobbie Thomas and a clinical psychologist. These testimonies’ showed Payne was of good character, he attended church and he was of low intelligence and mentally handicapped. The State presented the testimony of Ms. Christopher’s mother, who spoke of the negative impact of the murders on Nicholas. Furthermore, the prosecutor presented argument regarding Nicholas’ experience. The jury sentenced the Payne to death on each count of murder.
History: Pervis Tyrone Payne was arrested and charged with two counts of first-degree murder, the jury sentenced Payne to death on each count of murder.
Issue: Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit a capital sentencing jury from...

...officer’s actions were constitutional. The Appellate Court reversed and the State appealed.
Issue. Whether law enforcement officials can use deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed suspected felon under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
justi
A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old, and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has...